On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:20 AM Jonas Mårtensson
wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:16 AM Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>> > On 29 Aug, 2018, at 2:53 am, David Collier-Brown
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Humans experience delays directly, and so perceive systems with high
>> > latency
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:16 AM Jonathan Morton
wrote:
> > On 29 Aug, 2018, at 2:53 am, David Collier-Brown
> wrote:
> >
> > Humans experience delays directly, and so perceive systems with high
> latency as "slow". The proverbial "man on the Clapham omnibus" therefor
> responds to
> On 29 Aug, 2018, at 2:53 am, David Collier-Brown wrote:
>
> Humans experience delays directly, and so perceive systems with high latency
> as "slow". The proverbial "man on the Clapham omnibus" therefor responds to
> high-latency systems with disgust.
>
> A trained scientist, however, runs
On 2018-08-28 1:07 p.m., Dave Taht wrote:
In looking over the increasingly vast sqm-related deployment, there's
a persistent data point that pops up regarding inbound shaping at high
rates.
We give users a choice - run out of cpu at those rates or do inbound
sqm at a rate their cpu can afford.
Dave, very interesting to hear. In my dataset, I find that non-technical users
respond positively to the benefits of low-latency, even if the speedtest
metrics show much lower numbers than their plan indicates. Stuff happens
quicker, and more consistently, therefore they are happy.
It’s the
In looking over the increasingly vast sqm-related deployment, there's
a persistent data point that pops up regarding inbound shaping at high
rates.
We give users a choice - run out of cpu at those rates or do inbound
sqm at a rate their cpu can afford. A remarkable percentage are
willing to give
